How the other half lives: A reflection on Tivers (1978) from a physical geographer's point of view

This is a reflection on Tivers' (1978) paper from a physical geography point of view. I discuss four elements of the original paper: the increase in women in the field of geography, fieldwork, family role, and “ everyday sexism. ” Alongside this, I provide a reflection of my own experience as a UK physical geographer over the last 40 years and discuss the major changes over that time.

have been made in the American Geophysical Union (one of the largest earth science organisations), which traditionally had few women in senior roles. At the moment it has both a female President and CEO and the council is made up of 61% women. However, it is also important to remember many successful women are not as visible as their contribution deserves (Wellenreuther & Otto, 2016).
It is vital to recognise women in the past, not to reward as "heroic" as pointed out by Bracken and Mawdsley (2004), but to make sure they are a key part of any study of the history of physical geography as a whole (Burek & Higgs, 2020;Hart, 2007). In a world of surnames, it is important that academics highlight women researchers in their field, both current and from the past (Maddrell, 2015;Mott & Cockayne, 2017). The visibility of women as a key part of geography sends an important message to the whole community ( Figure 1).
Another important change has been the "feminisation" of physical geography. While in previous generations women tended to "hide" their femininity in an attempt to blend in, over recent years there has been a positive celebration of Physical geography early 1980s I began studies for my undergraduate degree, BSc Physical Geography, at the University of Reading in 1980. About 80% of students on the programme were women, while in geology about 80% were men. At the time both courses required two sciences, but the geography department counted geography as a science, while the geology department did not. The women on my course were perfectly able to study science, but many lacked the confidence or had been persuaded otherwise by teachers, and so had not pursued science A-levels. At the time, there were two women academic staff in the geography department.
I went on take my PhD in Environmental Science at the University of East Anglia. This department was a combination of physical geography, geology, and environmental science. When I joined there were no women academic staff, and about 30% women postgraduate students and postdoctoral researchers. There was also a huge cultural gap between postgraduates/postdoctoral researchers and academic staff. Postgraduates weren't seen as "apprentice" lecturers, and to suggest you wanted to be one was viewed (especially as a women) as outrageously ambitious. When I was appointed to a permanent lectureship in a geography department, my UEA peers were astonished that I had bridged this "gap"! In my field of glacial sedimentology and glaciology, the number of women postgraduates was also about 20%. Although there have been some "famous" women glaciologistssuch as Cuchlaine King, as in Embleton and King (1968) Glacial and periglacial geomorphology, the number of women academic staff in the field was low. At the time (the 1980s), British women were not allowed to do field work with British Antarctic Survey. The policy was changed in 1986 and women were finally able to use UK bases and logistics (although women could not overwinter on the mainland until 1996), due in part to the pioneering efforts of women like Janet Thomson and Elizabeth Morris OBE. However, women were not "banned" from the Arctic and I was able to carry out my PhD research in Svalbard, and later continue research in Iceland, Greenland, Norway, Alaska, as well as New Zealand.
I was able to get a permanent lectureship at the University of Southampton (after a nine-month teaching appointment at the University of Manchester). There was one other woman academic, Angela Gurnell (another physical geographer). At the time, many UK geography departments had no physical geography women academic staff and were hesitant to take one on. Luckily, at Southampton, Professor Gurnell had "paved the way" to the acceptance of women academics, and there had been a number of women instrumental in the development of the department, now immortalised with named undergraduate prizes. Florence Miller was a lecturer and senior lecturer in the department from 1921 to 1954 and its head from 1936 to 1954 (The Florence Miller Prize, for the best dissertation) and Katherine Boswell, lecturer in physical geography in the department 1932-1945 (Boswell Prize for best BSc student).
The main difficulties in the early years were the problems of being taken seriously, outright sexism, a lack of role models, a glass ceiling, and the isolation of often being the only woman to speak at a conference or in a meeting. womanhood in their choice of clothing, hair styles, and behaviour, as women begin to feel more accepted within the discipline. Numerous researchers have argued how everyone is an "actor" in their everyday lives by their choice of dress, with women being constantly judged by their appearance (Goffman, 1967;Gregson & Rose, 2000;Worth, 2016). There has been a shift in physical geography from a "uniform" of outdoor clothing (the range for women has also dramatically increased) to a greater freedom of clothing choice. The pioneer fluvial geomorphologist Katherine Boswell was described by a male contemporary as "an outdoor type, always wearing tweed skirts, ribbed stockings and walking shoes" (Wagstaff, 1996). However, the "freedom" of clothing also has its problems, as discussed above.
Increased numbers of women in the discipline have led to an awareness (and reduction) of the more toxic aspects of macho culture such as bullying and sexual harassment (in all their different forms). This has led to a much better working environment for everyone.

| FIELDWORK
Although Tivers (1978) doesn't specifically mention fieldwork, this has been a topic of discourse concerning feminist geography. One main change since 1978 is probably the awareness that fieldwork needs to be inclusive: the gendered "hyper masculinity" described by Nairn (1996) has been questioned and there is an understanding that family commitments or disability need to be accommodated. However, examples of bad practice are still all too common (Maddrell et al., 2019;Maguire, 1998). Maguire (1998) asked "why is physical geography unappealing to women?" Her answer is that "Physical Geography has had a perceived allegiance with science, itself a traditional gendered discourse (Keller, 1985;McEwan, 1998;Rose, 1993)," and "its association with the field and field-based research, again areas with a gendered tradition (McEwan, 1998;Sparke, 1996)." Although some elements of this are true, my own experience with fieldwork has always chimed closer to the "muddy glee" of Bracken and Mawdsley (2004).
I would argue physical geography is very appealing to women, and that fieldwork can be entirely positive. It relates to empowerment. The opportunity to plan and control your own fieldwork is the key. Participation in fieldwork may vary in F I G U R E 1 Images of physical geographers as part of the "100 years at Highfield Campus" display at the University of Southampton (2019). duration, level of physical exertion, and location throughout a career, and in addition, there are parts of physical geography that do not involve as much fieldwork as others (remote sensing, laboratory research). My experience is that women students enjoy fieldwork in an inclusive environment. Women students often lack confidence concerning their fitness, but usually there is no actual difference in fitness between men and women.
As for the science being a gendered discoursethis is not necessarily bad. Women with scientific backgrounds have been traditionally pushed toward the "lighter" sciences such a physical geography and environmental science and yet some of the most important scientific issues today relate to these very "lighter" science subjects, i.e., climate change, pollution, etc. The active engagement of women and girls in these subjects (both socially and academically) is vital for society. Women have always been a key part of the environmental movement (Breton, 2016;Kimball, 2019;Resurrección, 2017), and it has been argued that it will be women who will bear the brunt of the results of climate change (Demetriades & Esplen, 2010;Djoudi et al., 2016;Nagel, 2015). Tivers (1978) discussed the family role of women in society and human geography research, and there are related issues associated with family life and physical geography. In the past, it would have been difficult for women academics to have a family, first because of the marriage bar of the early 20th century, then later because of social expectations, the availability of childcare, or simply the knowledge that the time for both a career and being a mother was impossible. As one senior single childless women academic once said to me "There was hardly enough time for my research, there wasn't time for a family as well!" Without the free support often provided by wives for their husbands' career, women academics rarely had a "choice" of a family.

| FAMILY ROLE
The result of this is that there are still few women professors with a family. Many physical geographers have the additional problems with fieldwork. This will be especially difficult with remote locations, or on ships, when extended time away is required. This is one reason why the number of women doing research in Antarctica is still low. Hence, the changing patterns of fieldwork (location, duration, nature) over an academic career. On the positive side, the increase in women in the workforce as a whole has been accompanied by improvements in childcare and changes in social expectations about men's family role. This has meant that more men are now affected by the problems of long-duration fieldwork, and there is less stigma about discussing these issues and any potential solutions. One huge change since 1978 is an awareness of sexism within the academic world. It is still prevalent, but in more subtle form, i.e., "everyday sexism" (Maddrell et al., 2019;Todd, 2015).
Tangible efforts have been made to improve women's working conditions. The American Geophysical Union (AGU) for example has a very strong anti-harassment message, with potential awardees for prizes having background checks, and the hiring of a diversity officer. Attendees at conferences are provided with the space to report harassment (whatever the severity) and records are kept. These are all positive steps towards ensuring that this antisocial behaviour is not tolerated.

Physical geography 2020
There is no doubt that there have been significant improvements since 1980. Women now make up far greater numbers at postgraduate, staff, and professor level. But there are still problems for postdoctoral researchers trying to make the move to a lectureship. Although maternity (and paternity) provision is better, trying to meet "targets" as a young parent is very difficult, and many women feel unable to speak out about it.
The nature of sexism has changed. There is no explicit ban on women going to Antarctica, and extreme sexist language and behaviour is socially unacceptable. Instead there is a culture of "everyday sexism" where women are worn down by constant undermining, having to work harder for the same rewards, and the unspoken (but real) extra burden of childcare or parent care. In many departments there is still a macho culture where there is an "arms race" of publishing and grant success, rather than departmental success through group support.
I have had the opportunity to carry out fieldwork in many amazing glacial environments. When I had a family, I was able to take the children with me on fieldwork. I stopped doing fieldwork in more remote environments such as Svalbard because of the danger from polar bears. Instead, I worked in more accessible environments such as Iceland and Norway, where the glaciers are of equal scientific interest.An important part of my career has been networking support that I received from women in other science disciplines. I was an active member of the University of Southampton Women in Science and Engineering Group (WiSET). This supports women's promotion and mentoring, as well as hosts an annual Campbell Lecture, which celebrates women and science. This networking group gave me enormous support, through an understanding that our problems were similar (whichever the discipline), and gave me the confidence to believe we could produce real change.There are many signs of a positive cultural change within the discipline. A few years ago I was the external examiner of a PhD student who had just started a job at British Antarctic Survey (BAS) and was about to go "down south." After the viva, all her female friends (from BAS) joined her in celebration. Such a situation would not have been possible in the 1980s. Also there are far more women attending and giving talks at conferences, and sometimes there is even a queue for the "ladies"! Young women can imagine a career for themselves in physical geography and enjoy the company of other women. Back in 1990s I was the only woman on the QRA executive committee; now the majority of the committee are women! There have also been big changes in the glacial environment in the last 40 years. The number of women in glaciology has dramatically increased, and there are some interesting initiatives such as "Inspiring girls expeditions" (http://www.inspiringgirls.org/) to encourage more girls to choose glaciology. However, at the same time the glaciers have been dramatically retreating as temperatures warm ( Figure 22) and we must all play our part in trying to reduce CO 2 emissions. scholarly authorship (West et al., 2013), and invited journal articles (Conley & Stadmark, 2012); more stringent criteria are used to measure women's qualifications in grant evaluation panels (Leslie et al., 2015;Wenneras & Wold, 2010;Wold & Wennerås, 1997), weaker letters of recommendation for postdoctoral fellowships (Dutt et al., 2016), and women still receive smaller grants and fewer nominations for awards (Cho et al., 2014). There is also a worrying new trend of "blaming" women for their own lack of progress through the system, suggesting it is women's lack of confidence in putting themselves forward for promotion etc., rather than the systematic discrimination against them (as described above).
Other authors have stressed that the attributes that enable success in science are still seen as negative characteristics for women. West-Eberhard (in Wellenreuther & Otto, 2016) argues that positive traits such as "determined, motivated, persistent, stubborn, rebellious, irrepressible or independent-minded" become changed into negative descriptors when applied to women such as "pushy, strident, aggressive, selfish, obnoxious, mannish, unbecoming and less mentionable words." Similarly, when women work in a team, they rarely get the credit they deserve (Wellenreuther & Otto, 2016), "a male scientist with a well-developed network of collaborators is often judged to have excellent management skills, while a woman in the same position is more likely to get her independence questioned" (Qvarnström et al., 2016, n.p.).
Numerous researchers (Herrmann et al., 2016;Holmes et al., 2015) have stressed the role of positive role models to help women progress through their careers. Shen (2013) argues the importance of seeing women with children in science leadership positions. Similarly, the importance of mentors and networking have been highlighted (Hawkins, 2018;Maddrell et al., 2019), especially the Earth Science Women's Network (ESWN; Hastings et al., 2015).

| CONCLUSION
Things have moved on a long way since 1978, but as I have addressed in this reflection, there is still a long way to go. At every step of the academic ladder women experience "everyday sexism," that extra burden, that "mountain of molehills" (Rosen, 2017), which slows women down, whether its reviews, promotions, prizes, or appointments. Comments from McDowell still ring true, "it is a common view among the geographical establishment that the remedy for women's non-involvement in the power structures as their lack of representation at senior levels is seen to lie within their own hands …. I believe this argument denies the structures of male power that confront women and inhibit their participation" (1990, p 324). There is still progress to be made, and it is hoped this will be at the speed of an ice stream rather than a cold-based glacier!